Guns: how much longer will it take ....

parados wrote:

If it is clear that registration will lead to confiscation then I think it is pretty clear you demand to own any gun you want.

If it is clear that Obama wants to ban guns then I think it is pretty clear you demand to own any gun you want.

And that makes it very clear that you want to eliminate parts of the Constitution

which I guess makes us wonder why you call us the Freedom haters.

I'm glad you finally recognize the you are using bad logic.

Now will that stop you from calling others freedom haters?

parados wrote:

I'm glad you finally recognize the you are using bad logic.

You can't show a single flaw in any of my logic.

By Dana Milbank, Published: March 29

“Don’t get squishy,” President Obama told members of Congress.

But they already have.

“Now is the time,” the president said.

But the time was actually three months ago.

Obama made an impassioned bid this week to revive prospects for gun-control legislation, but it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that his efforts come too late. A fellow Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has killed plans for bans on assault weapons and large ammunition clips. Republicans appear to have enough votes to block any meaningful expansion of background checks. Public support for new gun controls is fading with memories of December’s Newtown massacre.

To counter the fade, the White House on Thursday assembled cops, ministers, children and families of gun-violence victims in the East Room, and Obama departed often from the script on his teleprompter to make an emotional appeal.

“The notion that two months or three months after something as horrific as what happened in Newtown happens, and we’ve moved on to other things — that’s not who we are,” he told his audience. “Less than 100 days ago that happened,” he added, “and the entire country pledged we would do something about it and that this time would be different. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

Well, shame on us. A CBS News poll out this week found that support for stricter gun-control laws has dropped to 47 percent, down from 57 percent just after the Connecticut slaughter. Even among Democrats, support has slipped to 66 percent from 78 percent in February.

There is no pleasure in I-told-you-sos on such a wrenching issue, but failure of the gun proposals was easy to predict. Three days after the Newtown shooting, when Obama was talking about action in “the coming weeks,” I argued against the White House’s slow walk: “In the case of gun control, a pattern has become persistent: A tragedy sparks an outcry for common-sense gun laws and gun groups are set back on their heels, but by the time Congress gets around to taking action, the National Rifle Association has regained its legislative stranglehold.”

Back then, White House press secretary Jay Carney said there was no hurry. He predicted that “in a few weeks or a few months,” the pain from Newtown will “still be incredibly intense.”

Not intense enough, apparently.

Obama’s failure to strike while the iron was hot offers a lesson in presidential leadership that goes beyond gun control. On almost every topic, from budget negotiations to national security, Washington seems only to act these days in response to crisis, if it acts at all. Obama erred in trying to use Newtown to build support for his positions on taxes, energy and immigration. And he compounded the error by sending Joe Biden off to conduct a study — an unnecessary delay when solutions were obvious. Once the president took his foot off the accelerator, no other action — not even Michael Bloomberg’s ad campaign — could maintain the momentum.

Even on the issue of background checks for gun purchasers — a concept that still has 90 percent approval in the CBS poll — the gun lobby appears to have prevailed. The NRA, which once supported the checks, reversed its position, and talks on a bipartisan compromise stalled. Now Reid doesn’t appear to have enough votes to break a Republican filibuster of the gun-control measure he is bringing before the Senate next month with background checks at its core. Pro-gun Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) has been floating a weaker version of checks — but even this isn’t gaining support.

Senate Republicans, led by Chuck Grassley (Iowa.), are at work on an alternative gun bill that would only increase penalties for gun trafficking and improve school safety. Those are good ideas, but nothing like the comprehensive reforms that seemed possible after Newtown.

So I watched with sadness at the White House on Thursday as a Marine pianist played and guests, including families of Newtown victims, took their seats. Some wore badges or green ribbons and filmed Obama as he tried to rekindle enthusiasm.

“There are some powerful voices on the other side that are interested in running out the clock, or changing the subject or drowning out the majority of the American people to prevent any of these reforms from happening at all,” he said. He called on Americans “to remember how we felt 100 days ago and make sure that what we said at that time wasn’t just a bunch of platitudes, that we meant it.”

Maybe those memories will be enough to overcome congressional inertia. But there’s no substitute for decisive presidential action.

i am increasingly coming to the conclusion that all parties will move on to selling an immigration deal, that gun control will go back under the rug after passing some mostly useless bill so that they can say they "did something".

the take-away here is that our "Great Leader" (in his own mind) miscalculated. Again.

Why Obama is losing on anti-gun legislation

by Jennifer Rubin

After each horrendous mass shooting, the left is convinced “everything has changed” on the gun issue and gun control is around the corner. But it never quite happens. The Newtown, Conn., tragedy is no exception.
Why is the president likely to get only a sliver of the anti-gun measures he seeks?
1. He overreached by including ineffective measures, such as a ban on military-style assault weapons. Opponents seized on those measures to doom the whole package of proposals.

2. The president lost time by sending the issue to a “commission,” giving Second Amendment advocates time to organize.

3. President Obama never has been good at convincing Americans or getting bipartisan agreement on any policy item, whether the sequester or tax hikes. His constant campaigning and histrionics are off-putting and polarizing.

4. The president imagines that the GOP is the opposition on gun-control policies, but his biggest problem is red-state Democrats who are convinced he offers them no political insulation from irate gun owners.

5. The measures President Obama chose for the bill would not have prevented the Newtown massacre, a point that even the legislation’s proponents concede. That gives heft to to the argument that Newtown was a pretext for far-ranging gun measures the left long had sought.

6. The House waited and watched. The House’s GOP leadership has learned to force the Senate to ante up and put the screws on vulnerable Senate Democrats.

7. The president largely ignored the mental-health problem (i.e. how to keep guns from the disturbed young men who commit these horrible crimes) and entirely ignored violent media, revealing his proposals to be more about going after the NRA than stopping deranged mass-killers.

8. Republicans in the Senate don’t fear the president, and they sure don’t like him. And he has not been able to rally their constituents, either. His constant harping on Republicans and his assumption that they act out of ill will hamper his ability to get Republicans to bargain with him.

9. Obama never mentioned this issue in the campaign and, therefore, can claim no mandate.

10. There are a whole lot of law-abiding gun owners who don’t trust the government.

The last is perhaps the most important factor, too often ignored by the gun-averse media. The NRA succeeds because it has many, many members who feel strongly about the issue and see the ominous hands of government behind innocuous-sounding proposals (e.g. “background checks”). Just as liberals viscerally recoil from government regulation of marriage and abortion, conservatives do when it comes to guns.

The only thing surprising about this latest episode is that, like Charlie Brown and the football, the media are convinced each time that they’ll knock it through the uprights.

Nope.

I think that should be titled "Why Jennifer Rubin is a partisan hack."

His constant campaigning and histrionics are off-putting and polarizing.

This is an urban/rural statement?

Quote:

His constant campaigning and histrionics are off-putting and polarizing.

Politics is all about the use of power, and the yardstick is success or failure.

The author is calling any attempt to succeed "campaigning" which is nothing but partisan BS.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

I'm glad you finally recognize the you are using bad logic.

You can't show a single flaw in any of my logic.

Funny how you think the slippery slope argument is bad logic when others use it but it is just fine when you use it.

Not only is there a flaw in your logic but there is a huge log in your eye that prevents you from seeing it.

the take-away here is that our "Great Leader" (in his own mind) miscalculated. Again.